that's all for us here in washington. "the journal editorial report" is up next. thanks again for spending your saturday with us. >> i'm uma uma pemmaraju. see you next time. this week on "the journal editorial report," the obama administration steps up attacks on israel's benjamin netanyahu ahead of his speech to congress next week. are they smart to elevate this fast? and plus, three are arrested for aiding isis as the fbi warns that radicalization is happening in all 50 states. and from the internet to obama net? what the fcc's new rules mean for the future of the world wide web. welcome to "the journal editorial report," i'm paul gigot. tensions between the obama administration and benjamin

netanyahu escalated this week, just days before his planned a dr.ess to congress. with national security adviser susan rice calling his visit destructive to the fabric of the relationship between israel and the u.s. speaking outside jerusalem wednesday, netanyahu said it appeared that the west had given up on its commitment to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. a claim secretary of state john kerry dismissed during testimony on capitol hill while questioning the prime minister's ability to make sound judgments. >> the prime minister as you recall was profoundly forward leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading iraq under george w. bush and we all know what happened with that decision. he may have a judgment that just may not be correct here. >> joining the panel this week,

wall street columnist and deputy editor, dan henninger. and global view columnist bret stephens. let's start with netanyahu. why would the administration want to elevate this speech? i know they oppose his appearing, but why make it such a personal and highly political criticism like they have the last week? >> well i think there's a couple of reasons, paul. obviously, a public relations offensive to marginalize and diminish the israeli prime minister in advance of this speech. >> but they're elevating its prominence. this is going to be the speech of the year. >> i completely agree. i mean, i don't see how this works for the administration. prime minister netanyahu is going to stand before congress. more people than imaginable are going to watch this speech. you can bet it is going to be the most substantive, detailed eloquent case against this deal

that anyone has made. it's going to be a great speech and after it's done, the administration is going to have to defend itself against the details in prime minister netanyahu's speech. >> i think, look, i think the administration is trying to accomplish two things. they're after vulnerable democrats who aren't -- who might shy away -- >> in the senate. >> in the senate, just last month the senate banking committee voted overwhelmingly with large democratic support for something called the menendez bill that would impose tough sanctions on iran bringing kirk menendez into the veto proof area. >> potential. on the cusp of. >> they want to peel away some of the democratic support. israel has an election in a few weeks and they hope that by putting such brutal pressure on the israeli government the israeli electorate may say we want a different prime minister because -- >> it could backfire in both

instances. >> could they defeat netanyahu? >> it happened in 1992, with the previous -- previous prime minister. israelis don't trust barack obama. they think that he's personalized his differences with bibi. they don't trust him to stop the iranian nuclear bomb and bottom line they're more worried about the iranian nuclear bomb than the obama administration. >> what about john kerry's critique of netanyahu, that he was wrong about iraq? correct me if i'm wrong, but i seem to recall that john kerry voted for the iraq war and even praised the president for a while. george w. bush as saying it was was -- it was good that he disarmed saddam hussein. >> you know, i think john kerry is carrying out a strategy that was designed in the white house and for him to be dragging the iraq war into what is clearly a debate over the iranian nuclear

deal i think smacked of desperation. i think it was the secretary of state trying to pull another argument out of thing air. you're right, it doesn't float. i think they realize they are on weak ground. john kerry said you can't talk about the details of this deal because no one yet knows what they are. it hasn't been completed. >> what an extraordinary admission at this point. >> well, but that's so they can avoid criticism. but the framework is coming in from leaks from the administration, in particular one that came out this week is the idea of a sun set provision that anything that iran agrees to would phase out and go away perhaps within 10 or 15 -- >> after that 10 or 15 year period, iran would become a full fledged member of the -- >> nuclear nonproliferation deal. >> right. they can build as many centrifuges without restrictions so long they didn't build a nuclear weapon itself. which means that this deal isn't

stopping iran from getting involved. it is actually facilitating its membership, its membership into the nuclear club. the other thing about this deal is that according to what we're hearing, it will allow the iranians to have an enrichment capability of 6,500 centrifugescentrifuge centrifuges -- >> enriching the raw material for a bomb. >> right. just about a year or two ago they were talking about maybe 500 centrifuges. >> before that, they were saying look, you shouldn't have any enrichment capacity at all. now we're ceding some industrial structure for a building a bomb and a phaseout. >> right. even now just last -- just the other week, the international atomic energy agency complained that iran continues to stone wall to see parts of iran's secret weaponization program. so they are -- they're cheating on their commitment even as they're negotiating a deal.

>> well, consider what we're describing here. essentially the administration is setting up a process with iran, iran is achieving a process that formalizes a path toward achieving a nuclear weapons capacity. if you're turkey or saudi arabia, you would say to yourself if we have set up a process for doing this, then we too are going to embark on the same process. create a condition of proliferation across the middle east. >> do you think it will happen? you're skeptical that a deal will come together? do you think we'll get one? >> well, i don't think so. i hold to my view. khamenei at the end of the day is going to veto it. >> thanks. when we come back three new york city men are arrested and charged with aiding isis as the fbi confirms that radicalization is happening in all 50 states. does the u.s. have what it needs to fight the home grown terror threat? better things than the pain stiffness, and joint damage of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

before you and your rheumatologist decide on a biologic ask if xeljanz is right for you. xeljanz (tofacitinib) is a small pill not an injection or infusion, for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. xeljanz can relieve ra symptoms, and help stop further joint damage. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers have happened in patients taking xeljanz. don't start xeljanz if you have any infection unless ok with your doctor. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz and routinely check certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you have been to a region where fungal infections are common, and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c or are prone to infections. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take. one pill, twice daily, xeljanz can reduce ra pain and help stop further joint damage,

even without methotrexate. ask about xeljanz.

three new york city men were arrested this week and charged with conspiring to provide material support to a terror group. the justice department announced wednesday that at least two of the brooklyn residents were planning to travel to syria to join the islamic state and wage jihad, but were prepared to carry out attacks here at home if those plans fell through. a phenomenon that fbi director james comey acknowledged this week is becoming too familiar to law enforcement officials across the u.s. >> we have investigations of people in various stages of radicalizing in all 50 states. this isn't a new york phenomenon or a washington phenomenon. this is all 50 states and in ways that are very hard to see. >> we're back with dan henninger and bret stephens. and "wall street journal" editorial board member dorothy rabinowitz also joins us. they prevented -- they were arrested before an attack, but apart from that, what is important about these arrests if your view?

>> everything. too much you count on one hand. it's a lethal rebuttal to everything you heard from the obama summit yesterday. >> last week. >> last week, rather. it is the proof that this is driven religious intense fanaticism. these are people who had their -- they didn't have any connection with the life around them except islam. and the other thing is that it brought to bear the truth that we are dependent on the intrusion of traffic, into traffic, all of the assaults against monitoring. these people were picked up because of the efficacy of this kind of -- >> surveillance and cyberspace in particular. >> absolutely. >> what it also tells you, paul, is that islamic state has become a magnet, an inspirer of jihadis around the world. >> right. >> of course here in the united states and so as long as -- >> a recruiting beacon. >> right. as long as they're perceived as successful and powerful they

are going to inspire more -- more such people not all of whom the fbi and other intelligence agencies are going to be able to stop. so when susan rice says that a group like islamic state is not an existential threat, i think that's a premature judgment on her part. there are thousands of westerns who are traveling or attempting to travel to syria, to iraq, to be trained and then to return to the west. >> well, i don't think we can overemphasize enough how the web is contributing to this phenomenon. the web has become a vehicle for recruitment, propagandizing and self-brainwashing by people who spend hours on it, listening to these people who then direct them to go and commit these acts. and the question is do we have the tools to surveil the web? both here in the united states and in europe? >> well, dorothy made that point, we have the tools if we'll use them. there's an attack on whether we can use them.

you need to be able to look another these website -- at these websites, monitor them and if somebody seems to show an ideological affinity you have to be able to track those people before they do something. >> well, so far we're pushing back. there's a lawsuit in new york called hassan versus new york city in which they have said that the new york police department is emphasizing the surveillance of muslims too hard. believe it or not, de blasio administration filed an amicus brief defending the nypd stronger than the bloomberg administration. >> these kids are not impoverished. a lot came from the middle class homes in brooklyn but also in europe where you had the young girls who travelled. they were stylishly dressed, you had jihad johnny, who is the killer in the black mask who now we know was again a well -- relatively well off middle class british kid.

>> there's not a single case that's come to life of an impoverished background here and to continue -- does jihad johnny need economic help? he has a steady job cutting people's heads off. this is a remarkable example of exactly how unfocused the administration is and how blindly they have taken us away from the proof that this is a religious imperative. these people have been outraged by their parents lack of obedience, idolatry is the charge that these girls had. how much more religious obsessiveness that you need to have? >> what about the threat that came out of al shabab, the al qaeda affiliate, that they'll attack the mall of america outside minneapolis? american shopping centers. is that an idle threat or something where they're trying to mobilize people here to take action? >> no, i think it's quite serious. after 9/11 i think a lot of us were wondering whether those

kind of attacks would become pervasive. part of the reason they didn't al qaeda was interested in the pentagon, obviously the twin towers. congress or the white house. if they could have done it. now i think you'll see some of the smaller groups go after easier targets and they can sow a lot of terror quickly. >> they can. and president obama demanded it in november and now the fcc obliged, voting to regulate the internet like a utility. what it means for consumers and the future of the web. eel tight like a vise. how can i ease this pain? (man) when i can't go, it's like rocks piling up. i wish i could find some relief. (announcer) ask your doctor about linzess-- a once-daily capsule for adults with ibs with constipation or chronic idiopathic constipation. linzess is thought to help calm pain-sensing nerves and accelerate bowel movements. it helps you proactively manage your symptoms. do not give linzess to children under 6,

and it should not be given to children 6 to 17. it may harm them. don't take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include, gas, stomach-area pain and swelling. bottom line, ask your doctor about linzess today. oh i'm on the cookie air diet. you just... and that's it. i prefer real food fruit, nuts, and whole grains. great grains cereal starts whole and stays whole. more processed flakes look nothing like natural grains. let's get real.

the fcc voted along party lines thursday to regulate the internet for the first time as a public utility. with the agency's three democrats approving a plan

pushed by president obama to treat broadband providers much like railroads and telephone companies, using rules designed almost a century ago. james freeman and editorial board member mary kissel join us with more. so james, explain to us in the simplest way possible, what this means for consumers who use the internet? >> yes. in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist now, but may in the future in terms of an internet service provider blocking you from going to a website you want to visit or -- >> no evidence that's happening. >> but just in case, this could happen in the future the government is now going to regulate basically all of the terms, conditions and really even prices even though they say they're not going to -- >> so what of the internet provider could charge for a service? >> right. everything has to be just and

reasonable. >> that's the language. >> according to the bureaucrats. >> that's a little vague, james. how should we say bureaucratic interpretation? >> yes. case by case discretion deciding is your internet company giving you a good deal are they being nice to the other companies that they interact with in the internet world? it's really -- we're laughing about it but it's frightening because you look at how much this free has done for the world. >> i'm beginning to see, this is about political control, giving to the fcc the discretion to be able to make decisions, to affect decisions by companies about what they do and how they charge and everything else on the internet. >> that's right. it's obamacare for the internet. it's exactly what the president did on health care, it's exactly what he's done using other regulatory agencies like for example the epa to just impose his will on vast swathes of the american economy and as james said, the internet has been a

wonderful tool for productivity for not just americans but for the globe. >> well, the fcc -- we have to stop any potential discrimination, that's crucial. we'll forebear -- we won't impose all the nasty rules. in fact, we won't touch 700 or so that applied to railroads and ma bell, so don't fret. >> well the fcc said they were going to end lingering uncertainty over the future of the internet. of course the irony is that the fcc itself is what has given us uncertainty over the future of the internet. >> more uncertainty to -- >> yeah and the cost will be borne by the consumer. we'll have legal costs, we don't know what the pricing structure will be. >> they may slow down investment because of that uncertainty. dan, who wanted them. >> who won?

>> no, who wanted this other than the president. why are we getting this if the internet has been working quite well? >> the democratic left wanted this. >> why? >> why? because they wanted to nationalize the internet and they don't want companies like verizon and time warner setting prices. what they're going to get just on the basis of our conversation, this is a lot of complexity and confusion. the fcc -- do you know who's going to answer all these questions? about 1,000 washington lawyers who will be hired by every one of these companies and they're going to put their arms around the internet and -- >> but politically, james, i mean, i think dan is right. politically also you had a lot of big companies in silicon valley netflix for example, which uses an incredible amount of web band width and google financed all the groups. they had second thoughts, but why does silicon valley want this? >> google and others were

endorsing this when it was kind of a vague concept that we're going to treat consumers well. as it's now evolved with push from the left wing activists and from netflix into the government is going to run the internet, they're starting to have second thoughts. and netflix basically they don't want to pay -- they don't want to pay a lot of money for the fact that they push about a third of all internet traffic with their high-definition movies into people's homes. they want other people to pay for that, but i think they're going to regret it. >> mary, what can be done about this? it looks like congress can't stop it. what's the response? >> well, i think it will get tied up in courts because several companies said they'll sue. but ultimately this problem can only be fixed with a new ok occupant in the white house. you need the congress to act and to get the bureaucrats get -- >> or appoint a new fcc chairman and get rid of this rule.

we have to take one more break. when we come back, "hits & misses" of the week.

time now for "hits & misses" of the week. dorothy? >> yes, a big miss to the oscars which last week awarded the statuette to a film embracing snowden who stole 1.7 million classified documents and disseminated hundreds of thousands of them at the oscars. now, only last week the head of mi-6 announced to kings college that in england that we must not forget how much damage snowden did and that we are in far greater danger of being attacked by terrorists thanks to the dissemination of these files. so let us remember that there is nothing as repellent as an award for those who have done so much to make the lives of terrorists

easier. >> mary? >> a big hit jay carney who's heading to amazon to do pr following in the footsteps of david plouffe at uber. going to a big organization for with a penchant for lobbying for big handouts from big washington bureaucracies. i think mr. carnie will feel right at home. >> james? >> this is a hit to the supreme court this week for pushing back against overzealous prosecutors. this was a case where the fish and wildlife department in mary's home state of florida had gone after a fisherman with the sarbanes-oxley law which was supposed to go after corporate law. he threw some undersized grouper fish back into the water when they approached his boat. this was considered -- >> and they vanished, therefore they accused him of shredding the fish. >> like shredding documents. good for the supreme court for saying no to this fish story. >> all right. it was 5-4 if i recall.

close. remember, if you have your own hit or miss, please tweet it to us. that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel and for all of you watching. i'm paul gigot. hope to see you right here next week. congress going down to the wire avoiding partial shutdown of the department of homeland security. with the house voting 356-60 with two hours to spare before a midnight deadline. lawmakers passing a seven-day stopgap funding extension to keep the agency up and running. hello, everyone. welcome to america's news headquarters, i'm kelly wright. >> i'm julie banderas. the one-week patch underscoring deep divisions over the way forward with some gop lawmakers split on reversing president obama's immigration policies as a provision for the